~ “I hope we once again have reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There’s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: as government expands, liberty contracts.” Ronald Reagan.

Hillary Clinton had something earlier to say about the Mueller Report. She might want to reconsider that. As for her rapist/perverted husband, Bill Clinton, he might want to go into hiding for the next month.

The Russians recorded then-President Bill Clinton having phone sex with Monica Lewinsky, but it was redacted in the Mueller report. Yet the fraudulent Golden Showers story about the President made it into the Mueller report.

The Clinton-Lewinsky sex story left Clinton open to blackmail at the time. The RUSSIANS had it on tape. It was redacted from the Mueller report to protect Clinton’s privacy. Meanwhile, the Golden Showers story was fake and we all know it. That is the story where Trump allegedly paid prostitutes to pee on a bed Barack Obama had slept on. It’s been debunked, even by the Russians.

The American public knew about this Clinton-Lewinsky affair since at least 2001 and there was no need to redact it.

Russia knew about the Clinton-Lewinsky affair before Americans knew. That was a perfect blackmail situation[…]

I first saw “Diggstown” in a theater, which means I saw it in 1992 after returning from the recently-collapsed USSR. In Cincinnati. I immediately tagged it as classic, passed it onto my sons, more avid movie-goers who concurred.

But I didn’t go to see James Wood. I had always loved Bruce Dern (the heavy in this film) and Lou Gossett, Jr.

Of course, today James Wood is a star of conservatism and Twitter, on almost as many most-hated lists as Donald Trump. Even Sara. Good company, all.

But a film like “Diggstown” you don’t care about anyone’s politics. Besides GHW Bush was still in the White House, the early bets on the peace dividend were only just being wagered, the Clintons still in Arkansas, and Monica Lewinsky was just graduating from high school. The coming onslaught on American morals were still a year or two in the making.

For many in the Baby Boomer generation (I’m 72) the Clinton regime was a genuine crucible, for we all had to confront dozens of inconsistencies (actually, tugs of war) in our own belief systems, that had been nagging at us since the Vietnam War…from basic morality, true good and evil, to the true nature of American exceptionalism, and where it resided and did not (that study continues) in American society. A law class ahead of Bill Clinton, we all recognized his type easily from that era…some admired it, others not so much.

Wikipedia tells us that the Clintons changed James Wood’s politics entirely[…]

Q: Has America had any enemy or antagonist since W0rld War II which the Democratic Party has NOT made common cause with?

To make “Common cause” generally means “to unite one’s interest with another’s” and since the 1970s the term has been associated with a liberal leaning political group by the same name, who first came into being to urge the United States out of its war in Vietnam….but only after a safe distance (four years) could be established between the Vietnam War and the Democratic Party administrations, (Kennedy and Johnson), who started it.

(The Vietnam War was once called by National Review and William F Buckley the “last Liberal war”, per John Roche, friend of WFB, and one of LBJ’s architects of that war.)

An apt name, Comm0n Cause, for although the Democratic Party of Franklin D Roosevelt did not make common cause with the Soviet Union of Josef Stalin, the American Left did, and they made common cause with the Democratic Party. It was a tawdry romance that had existed since Wilson, but rings and vows would not be exchanged sealing their marriage until 1976 when the Left formally took over the Party. But if the Democrats had a state department, the Left had been it since the formation of the League of Nations in 1919.

But the proof was always there for people inside the loop. The “people” who were not in the loop where those whose only access to information was the national press corps.

Follow me here:

In the 1930s, with the rise of Hitler in Germany, almost all of America joined to hate the Nazis. And Hollywood produced films about them, mostly B-action movies about G-men and derring-do. But no one in America knew that genocide was taking place inside the Soviet Union, especially the Ukrainian famine in 1932-1933, killing 7-10 million.

No one in America knew this had happened largely because the New York Times, who covered it, never reported it…even though they knew. In fact, their reporter there, Walter Duranty, earned a Pulitzer Prize for not reporting it, while instead sending back glowing reports of the Brave New World Stalin had chiseled out for Soviet citizens (who had not died or been sent off to the Gulag)[…]

One most certainly gets the feeling that the Clinton has used up the last of their nine lives. At least, that is what the far left and Hillary’s daughter from another mother, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, is hoping.

Progressives need to purge themselves of the Clintons so that they can levy the sexism, racism, rape, pedophilia and Roy Moore cards at President Donald Trump and anyone else on the right who runs in 2020, a prelude of which we will witness during the mid-term elections in 2018.

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) has been mentioned as a 2020 presidential candidate and is being held up as a Democrat icon. That is why it matters that she came out against Bill Clinton on a most sensitive of topics, long denied by Democrats – Bill abused women. The message from this should be clear – the Age of Clinton is over.

Kirsten Gillibrand, the “hottest” member of Congress according to Harry Reid. That must have offended Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters.*

Democrats are finally apologizing to alleged rape victim Juanita Broadderick and are condemning Hillary’s lecherous husband. It’s in their interests to do it as more and more Democrats are being exposed as molesters and while they want to trash Roy Moore into a loss in next month’s election.

Democrats call themselves the party of women and have to live up to that misnomer.

Gillibrand is practically the Clinton’s neighbor and she has declared that Bill Clinton should have resigned the presidency during the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

Of whether the former president should have stepped down, Senator Gellibrand said, “Yes, I think that is the appropriate response.”

Politico wrote, “…it allowed Gillibrand to act as the tip of the spear on a position that many Democrats suspect will slowly become more popular in the party.”

That is the point, isn’t it? They are going to keep attacking until the Clintons shut up and go away. The Clintons are over and right now all they do is distract from the attacks Democrats are leveling at President Trump and Roy Moore[…]

When facing their sins, they’ll play it off as “but that was long ago” and “The Democratic Party has moved on,” a dog whistle for we’re allowed to move on because we say so and the Republican Party is not allowed to move on because we say so.” “we” being Democrats

I heard this said at least 10 years ago, so it is not a recent Weinstein-reflex.

“The greatest threat to mankind are women without men and men without balls.”

Twice now in a quarter century feminists have attempted to parlay their own political hypocrisy into attempting to force men into a kind of psychological subjugation, complete with dog collars.

Guilty by Reputation, Guilty at Law

Harvey Weinstein fills an important niche in this history of political hypocrisy. Yes, hypocrisy, not sexual predation, where he is actually rather ordinary.

Sexual predation has been with us since New York became a metropolis.. And from the beginning there was the “predator by reputation” and the “predator at law”. As a former criminal defense lawyer I’m absolutely religious about keeping the two concepts separate, since guilt-by-reputation is almost impossible to defend against if one is innocent….and that is precisely the power the Feminists have been driving toward attaining for many years.

We’ve seen this in politics in recent history, and even in the dim past of Hollywood (see below), but it was practiced on smaller scales in colleges of the 60s, as when 4 or 5 Tri Delts teamed up to tag a guy at Kappa Alpha (Dieu et les dames) as being a habitual masher because, after drunken behavior with a sister at a kegger, then throwing up on her best party dress, then, sin of all sins, he failed to offer to pay for its cleaning, or offer at least one of several courtesies of the day, a card, flowers or other gesture of repentance, all of which separated the Greek community from the average hoi polloi who still went out on blind dates. In those days, that the less-than-gallant KA also actually copped a feel wasn’t necessarily a part of the sisters’ indictment for the guy to earn a bad reputation. Still, within two weeks he couldn’t get a date anywhere in the Greek community. Forbidden fruit.

It was just as tough in small towns. A girl with a “reputation” was a girl to be avoided in every respectable home, s one to be avoided at all costs. But woe betide the young man who spread untrue tales about a girl, especially if she had big brothers.

There were always rules, for both males and females could be mean and vicious, so all sorts of extra-legal methods of suppressing uncalled-for rumors evolved, from shunning (ostracism) to sending the aforementioned three big brothers over to teach that kid a lesson who said those ugly things about their sister.

This informal system evolved over perhaps a hundred year trial period, with regional variations around the country, but you can see how such a hit-and-miss system of sexual justice just cried out for more formal regulation. And over the last 30 years or so schools especially, then the workplace, had come up various cookie-cutter, one-size fits all solutions.

We all know how well those have worked, where in many companies, and several colleges a simple glare amounts to sexual harassment. And can be reported, and the culprit has to write an essay on “white privilege” or somesuch.

But this is not to confuse us with Harvey Weinstein or Hollywood. They are both the real deal. I’m sure unauthorized biographies are already in the works, and probably show that he was a masher at least from his years at the University of Buffalo in the 1970s. I’d bet that he wanted to work in Hollywood primarily because that was where the girls were. Better, the original sin city, den of iniquity, debauchery-town Hollywood was where men with talent could become rich and famous, and Harvey and brother Bob proved they were of that caliber. Took about 15 years. Moreover, for Harvey, who looks the part of the guy who couldn’t get laid in a women’s prison with a fistful of pardons, Hollywood’s “casting couch” reputation provided a source of power for un-handsome men, allowing them to avoid having to pay for hookers on South Figueroa[…]

Everyone knew that the Obama administration and for AG Loretta Lynch’s talking points about the infamous not-so-coincidental meetup with Bill Clinton on the tarmac last year was a lie and thanks to the ACLJ, we now have proof.

The ACLJ has obtained a cache of documents about the notorious tarmac meeting. (Expect Crooked Hillary to cry “sexism” and Lynch to invoke the race card and cry “sexism” but the facts remain.

VICTORY: We obtained crucial docs in our investigation of former AG Lynch’s secret meeting with former Pres Clinton. https://t.co/4ZylYX6eud

First, the Comey FBI lied to us. Last July, we sent FOIA requests to both the Comey FBI and the Lynch DOJ asking for any documents related to the Clinton Lynch plane meeting. The FBI, under the then directorship of James Comey, replied that “No records responsive to your request were located.”

The documents we received today from the Department of Justice include several emails from the FBI to DOJ officials concerning the meeting. One with the subject line “FLAG” was correspondence between FBI officials (Richard Quinn, FBI Media/Investigative Publicity, and Michael Kortan) and DOJ officials concerning “flag[ing] a story . . . about a casual, unscheduled meeting between former president Bill Clinton and the AG.” The DOJ official instructs the FBI to “let me know if you get any questions about this” and provides “[o]ur talkers [DOJ talking points] on this”. The talking points, however are redacted.

Another email to the FBI contains the subject line “security details coordinate between Loretta Lynch/Bill Clinton?”

On July 1, 2016 – just days before our FOIA request – a DOJ email chain under the subject line, “FBI just called,” indicates that the “FBI . . . is looking for guidance” in responding to media inquiries about news reports that the FBI had prevented the press from taking pictures of the Clinton Lynch meeting. The discussion then went off email to several phone calls (of which we are not able to obtain records). An hour later, Carolyn Pokomy of the Office of the Attorney General stated, “I will let Rybicki know.” Jim Rybicki was the Chief of Staff and Senior Counselor to FBI Director Jim Comey. The information that was to be provided to Rybicki is redacted[…]